NIAA ID Expo August 22, 2006 Linda S. Campbell

1

• NIAA ID ExpoAugust 22, 2006Linda S.
  Campbell
• Luray VA
• Chair, Goat Species Working Group

2

• Background
• Diversity of Goat Usage
• Issues Facing Industry
• ID Recommendations
• Movement Reporting
• Work to Date
• Successful Implementation
• Committee Structure

3
Background
Initially, a combined Sheep and Goat Working
Group was created. To facilitate more diverse
representation from each industry, and to address
differences between species, separate groups were
developed and began work.
4
Diversity of Uses

• Dairy
• Meat
• Fiber
• Pets
• Hiking/Packing/Driving
• Weed Abatement/Forest Management
• Biotechnology

5
Issues Facing Industry

• Multi uses for goats under variety of
  environments and managements
• ID for Scrapie Eradication (NSEP) program already
  in place
• Cost of program versus value per head economic
  viability
• Tag retention due to thinness of ear, nature of
  browsing habits, curiosity of goats, infections
• One breed with very tiny ears that does not allow
  traditional ear tag usage
• 15 digits on a small ear tag difficult to read

6
Goat Products
Milk, Cheese, Meat, Fiber, Seed Stock, Ability to
Browse, Companionship
7
Concerns Being Voiced

• Batch uploading of existing Scrapie Premise ID to
  convert to NAIS ID without first asking Premise
  Owner
• Practicality of program implementation
• Cost of program versus value per head economic
  viability
• Lack of details about program available when
  Premises IDs being signed up
• Questions of constitutionality of program
• Any mandatory requirement

8
Goat ID Recommendations

• Continue with current approved ID being used for
  Scrapie program
• Conduct US field trials to fully test with
  different breeds and managements
• Request that USDA/FSIS approve site for
  electronic implants, with preference for tail
• Provide approved devices to producers
• Allow Group Lot ID when applicable

9
Goat ID Methods (In place with NSEP)

• Unique Registration tattoos When accompanied
  by official Registration/Certificate of Identity
  
• Scrapie Program Plastic and Metal Ear tags
• Electronic Implants/RFID tags When accompanied
  by official Registration/Certificate of Identity

10
Problems with Ear Tags
While ear tags could most efficiently provide
both visual and electronic identification, the
problems with retention, infections and the issue
with the LaMancha breed, currently make it not
acceptable as the only method of identification.
11
GWG Work to date

• Recommendations for ID and movement reporting
• Compiling information and developing
  communications with goat breeders in US and
  internationally
• Discussing/defining high risk and low risk
  events
• Developing Working Group information website
  www.USAnimalID.com
• Providing articles for media
• Developing survey for industry feedback
• Developed email discussion list for industry
  feedback

12
Movement Reporting

• Utilize existing methods of collecting and
  reporting movement information for initial phase
• Certificate of Veterinary Inspection
• Existing regulatory program (such as Scrapie)

13
Successful Implementation Requires

• Allowing flexibility with ID methods beyond
  phase-in period
• Continued involvement with industry
  representatives as as plan develops
• Working with organizations to integrate with
  existing systems
• Adequate research and field trials using range of
  goat breeds and managements
• Incorporating existing production/management
  information and current industry practices
• Implementing reasonable record keeping
  requirements
• Protecting producer confidentiality of records

14
Successful Implementation Requires

• Comprehensive educational effort offering
  information and accurate answers for producers,
  markets, consumers, inspectors, veterinarians and
  others
• Working with organizations to integrate with
  existing systems
• Important for individual states to consider
  recommendations of species working groups if they
  separately implement programs prior to full NAIS
  implementation
• Adequate funding to provide staffing to handle
  existing regulatory programs and port inspections
  should be ensured.

15
Goat Working Group Members
The goal of the Goat Working Group has been to
seek input from individuals that represent owners
and partners involved with all components of goat
breeding, usage and handling.
James RamseyerJoe David RossJoan Dean Rowe,
DVMLisa ShepardMarvin ShurleyDiane Sutton,
DVMRobert SwizeCindy Wolf, DVMLinda Worley
Linda Campbell, ChairBarry ArnettJan
CarlsonBonnie ChandlerCharles
ChristensenBennie CoxRene DeLeeuwCarolyn
EddyRay HoytDavid Morris, DVMStan Potratz
16
NAIS SubCommittee Members

• Members Affiliation
•  
• Mr. John Adams National Milk Producer's
  Federation
• Ms. Linda Campbell American Dairy Goat
  Association
• Dr. Mark Engle National Pork Board
• Dr. Robert Fourdraine Wisconsin Livestock
  Identification Consortium
• Dr. Bob Hillman Texas Animal Health Commission,
  State Veterinarian
• Ms. Amy Mann American Horse Council
• Ms. Marcine Moldenhauer Excel Corporation
• Mr. Jim Niewold Swine Producer
• Dr. Clarence Siroky Idaho Department of
  Agriculture, State Veterinarian
• Mr. Scott Stuart National Livestock Producers
  Association
• Mr. Gary Wilson Cattle Producer, Ohio Department
  of Agriculture
• Dr. Cindy Wolf University of Minnesota, CVM
• Dr. Taylor Woods Missouri Department of
  Agriculture, State Veterinarian
•  
• USDA APHIS Veterinary Services Resources
• Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt - NAIS Program Staff
• Dr. John Wiemers - NAIS Program Staff

17
At the end of the day
we hope that whatever is developed will provide
a uniform system that meets the goals of
protecting U.S. animal agriculture, while
preserving the economic viability of the
producers large and small protecting
confidentiality of information and providing an
effective and accurate means of identifying our
animals at the least cost and least disruption to
our operations and lives.
18
Questions?
19
The End!